Oftentimes we hear that there are no Holy Mysteries or Sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church. And we have read here where the Orthodox do not recognise the Catholic Baptism. However, what can be said about the following declaration?"For the record, the Eparchial Synod of Bishops of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, with the concurrence of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, has determined to recognize by extreme Oikonomia the heterodox Baptisms normatively performed according to the prescribed form in the following denominations and churches: (a.) Anglican Catholic (b.) Anglican Communion (Church of England, Episcopal, etc.) (c.) Assembly of God (d.) Baptist (e.) Church of the Brethren (f.) Lutheran (g.) Methodist (h.) Moravians (i.) Non-Chalcedonian and Monophysite Churches (j.) Old Catholic (Polish National Catholic Church, Church of Utrecht, Liberal Catholic Church, etc.) (k.) Presbyterian (l.) Roman Catholic (m.) United Church of Christ.

This decision is respected by all hierarchs and all synods of the Orthodox Church in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and it is consonant with similar determinations by the synods of the jurisdictions comprising the Standing Committee of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in America (SCOBA)."According to this, it looks like the Catholic baptism,( including baptism by sprinkling ?), is fully recognised, albeit by extreme oikonomia. http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/reception_of_converts.htm

If there were a recognition here of Roman Catholic baptism in and of itself and not by "extreme Oikonomia" then many of the Greek bishops and priests would need to be deposed since it is not uncommon for them to baptize Roman Catholics. The canons require the deposition of clergy who perform second baptisms.

Our new Metropolitan in New Zealand Metropolitan Amphilochios has been undertaking quite a lot of missionery work in the the years he has been here and he baptizes Roman Catholics every time.

they are recognized as having valid form that can be "completed by Chrismation".

hence, "extreme oikonomia".

This is old news.

However, I would add that the idea that it is somehow oikonomical to confuse the heterodox (this post is exhibit A of the confusion) and to scandalize the faithful (exhibit B: the many posts on here where people received by chrismation only complain of nagging feelings of illegitimacy and unworthiness) is rather suspect. Pastorally, why is it a good call to deny Orthodox baptism to those who desire it where such a baptism could easily be performed?

« Last Edit: July 19, 2010, 08:32:43 PM by JLatimer »

Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

Right. This is the message from the posters on this forum: Catholic Baptism is not recognised. But if that is true, then what does this mean:""For the record, the Eparchial Synod of Bishops of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, with the concurrence of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, has determined to recognize by extreme Oikonomia the heterodox Baptisms...""This decision is respected by all hierarchs and all synods of the Orthodox Church in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and it is consonant with similar determinations by the synods of the jurisdictions comprising the Standing Committee of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in America (SCOBA)."?So, if you do not accept this declaration are you in schism from the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Holy Orthodox Church? Is this declaration accepted or not by all Orthodox bishops and have they issued a statement on it?And do the Orthodox here on this forum accept this declaration 100% or not?

Right. This is the message from the posters on this forum: Catholic Baptism is not recognised. But if that is true, then what does this mean:""For the record, the Eparchial Synod of Bishops of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, with the concurrence of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, has determined to recognize by extreme Oikonomia the heterodox Baptisms...""This decision is respected by all hierarchs and all synods of the Orthodox Church in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and it is consonant with similar determinations by the synods of the jurisdictions comprising the Standing Committee of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in America (SCOBA)."?So, if you do not accept this declaration are you in schism from the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Holy Orthodox Church? Is this declaration accepted or not by all Orthodox bishops and have they issued a statement on it?And do the Orthodox here on this forum accept this declaration 100% or not?

Again you are misinterpreting the declaration. Please see above where I interpreted it for you. The declaration in no way states that heterodox baptism is a Graced Sacrament.

See also Irish Hermit's reductio above.

« Last Edit: July 19, 2010, 08:59:44 PM by JLatimer »

Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

What you have extracted is quite unenforceable since the canons of the holy Church of Constantinople mandate the baptism of Roman Catholics. If we glance at the Agreed Statement of the American Catholic-Orthodox dialogue we see that the delegates are imploring Constantinople to annul the canons requiring reception by baptism.** Constantinople has so far done nothing to annul them. Therefore the Greek bishops and priests who choose not to use economy and not to chrismate are acting canonically by baptizing.

The last official statement from any Orthodox Church regarding the reception of Roman Catholics is probably this Patriarchal and Synodical letter of 1875 from Constantinople.

Its recommendation is that the various ways of receiving Catholics by different Orthodox Churches should be left in place. And one day in the future a pan-Orthodox Council will look at the matter. It seems an eminently sensible approach from the holy Patriarchate of Constantinople.-oOo-

Oftentimes we hear that there are no Holy Mysteries or Sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church. And we have read here where the Orthodox do not recognise the Catholic Baptism. However, what can be said about the following declaration?"For the record, the Eparchial Synod of Bishops of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, with the concurrence of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, has determined to recognize by extreme Oikonomia the heterodox Baptisms normatively performed according to the prescribed form in the following denominations and churches: (a.) Anglican Catholic (b.) Anglican Communion (Church of England, Episcopal, etc.) (c.) Assembly of God (d.) Baptist (e.) Church of the Brethren (f.) Lutheran (g.) Methodist (h.) Moravians (i.) Non-Chalcedonian and Monophysite Churches (j.) Old Catholic (Polish National Catholic Church, Church of Utrecht, Liberal Catholic Church, etc.) (k.) Presbyterian (l.) Roman Catholic (m.) United Church of Christ.

This decision is respected by all hierarchs and all synods of the Orthodox Church in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and it is consonant with similar determinations by the synods of the jurisdictions comprising the Standing Committee of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in America (SCOBA)."According to this, it looks like the Catholic baptism,( including baptism by sprinkling ?), is fully recognised, albeit by extreme oikonomia. http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/reception_of_converts.htm

Maybe we should talk about those Catholics who translate to Orthodoxy via a confession of faith....no chrismation.

What you have extracted is quite unenforceable since the canons of the holy Church of Constantinople mandate the baptism of Roman Catholics. If we glance at the Agreed Statement of the American Catholic-Orthodox dialogue we see that the delegates are imploring Constantinople to annul the canons requiring reception by baptism.** Constantinople has so far done nothing to annul them. Therefore the Greek bishops and priests who choose not to use economy and not to chrismate are acting canonically by baptizing.

To sum up then, you reject this declaration as being against the canons of the holy Church of Constantinople.And I suppose then that you would say that these bishops do not have the authority to change these canons? Is there universal agreement on this and was there any later statement made clearing up the confusion of the statement that I had quoted?Thanks.

The last official statement from any Orthodox Church regarding the reception of Roman Catholics is probably this Patriarchal and Synodical letter of 1875 from Constantinople.

Its recommendation is that the various ways of receiving Catholics by different Orthodox Churches should be left in place. And one day in the future a pan-Orthodox Council will look at the matter. It seems an eminently sensible approach from the holy Patriarchate of Constantinople.-oOo-

Maybe we should talk about those Catholics who translate to Orthodoxy via a confession of faith....no chrismation.

I am told that this is done but rarely and under exceptional circumstances.

The Hapgood Service Book which is the English translation of the Services used in pre-revolutionary Russia makes no mention of it in the various services for reception.

Sometimes even a confession of faith is not sought!! For example the approx 30,000 Uniates received into Orthodoxy in the States about 100 years ago were not chrismated and neither were they required to present or to read a confession of faith. They simply went to Holy Communion and voila....members of the Orthodox Church!

The last official statement from any Orthodox Church regarding the reception of Roman Catholics is probably this Patriarchal and Synodical letter of 1875 from Constantinople.

Its recommendation is that the various ways of receiving Catholics by different Orthodox Churches should be left in place. And one day in the future a pan-Orthodox Council will look at the matter. It seems an eminently sensible approach from the holy Patriarchate of Constantinople.-oOo-

I don't see any official status claimed for the article you quote? There is not even a footnote referring to anything official.

For an average Joe the Plumber who is just reading this declaration it seems like it would be official because it says:"the Eparchial Synod of Bishops of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, with the concurrence of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, has determined ...."So is it true that such a determination by the Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople would not be official in any way?

That the Orthodox Church accepts the existence of True Grace-filled Sacraments outside the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church? It doesn't.

RC baptism (and apparently Church of the Brethren baptism, for that matter) are accepted as having a valid Trinitarian form, that the Church can, through extreme economy, 'retroactively' fill with Grace, fulfilling in the Holy Spirit that which beforehand lacked efficacy.

Please remember, though, that economy is precisely that: economy. It is not the 'norm', nor is this declaration some sort of doctrinal statement on the Mysteries. How could it be, when it speaks of recognizing the baptisms of denominations like the Assemblies of God, who don't even believe in the existence of Sacraments?!?

« Last Edit: July 19, 2010, 11:10:35 PM by JLatimer »

Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

I don't see any official status claimed for the article you quote? There is not even a footnote referring to anything official.

For an average Joe the Plumber who is just reading this declaration it seems like it would be official because it says:"the Eparchial Synod of Bishops of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, with the concurrence of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, has determined ...."So is it true that such a determination by the Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople would not be official in any way?

The average Joe Bloggs would like to see 1) the official statement of the American Greek Bishops, and 2) the Constantinople statement which "concurs" with it.

We note that some of what is said is an out and out fib - "This decision is respected by all hierarchs and all synods of the Orthodox Church in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate."

In the States, the Serbian Church will usually baptize Roman Catholics and the other denominations mentioned, and so will the parishes and monasteries of the Jerusalem Patriarchate in the States, and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad will nearly always baptize. Porkies like this call the article into question.

The matter of the reception of converts from other Christian groups is simply unsettled and it is unreal for an article such as this to make out that there is one united practice for all the Orthodox Churches. There just isn't.

That the Orthodox Church accepts the existence of True Grace-filled Sacraments outside the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church? It doesn't.

RC baptism (and apparently Church of the Brethren baptism, for that matter) are accepted as having a valid Trinitarian form, that the Church can, through extreme economy, 'retroactively' fill with Grace, fulfilling in the Holy Spirit that which beforehand lacked efficacy.

Please remember, though, that economy is precisely that: economy. It is not the 'norm', nor is this declaration some sort of doctrinal statement on the Mysteries. How could it be, when it speaks of recognizing the baptisms of denominations like the Assemblies if God, who don't even believe of Sacraments?!?

This is really quite asinine on your part to make such an unwarranted ad hominem assumption that I am attempting to prove something.

That the Orthodox Church accepts the existence of True Grace-filled Sacraments outside the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church? It doesn't.

RC baptism (and apparently Church of the Brethren baptism, for that matter) are accepted as having a valid Trinitarian form, that the Church can, through extreme economy, 'retroactively' fill with Grace, fulfilling in the Holy Spirit that which beforehand lacked efficacy.

Please remember, though, that economy is precisely that: economy. It is not the 'norm', nor is this declaration some sort of doctrinal statement on the Mysteries. How could it be, when it speaks of recognizing the baptisms of denominations like the Assemblies if God, who don't even believe of Sacraments?!?

This is really quite asinine on your part to make such an unwarranted ad hominem assumption that I am attempting to prove something.

Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

We note that some of what is said is an out and out fib - "This decision is respected by all hierarchs and all synods of the Orthodox Church in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate."

So I think that people should be able to understand the confusion of Joe the Plumber when he reads this declaration which appears on the site of the Orthodox Research Institute and is signed at the bottom as a Publication of the Diocese of DenverGreek Orthodox Church of AmericaDecember 1997

That the Orthodox Church accepts the existence of True Grace-filled Sacraments outside the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church? It doesn't.

RC baptism (and apparently Church of the Brethren baptism, for that matter) are accepted as having a valid Trinitarian form, that the Church can, through extreme economy, 'retroactively' fill with Grace, fulfilling in the Holy Spirit that which beforehand lacked efficacy.

Please remember, though, that economy is precisely that: economy. It is not the 'norm', nor is this declaration some sort of doctrinal statement on the Mysteries. How could it be, when it speaks of recognizing the baptisms of denominations like the Assemblies if God, who don't even believe of Sacraments?!?

This is really quite asinine on your part to make such an unwarranted ad hominem assumption that I am attempting to prove something.

I am glad that you enjoyed the comment. No. There is a problem with this declaration and it is not that easy at times to see what is going on, when there are people out there claiming different interpretations.

I am glad that you enjoyed the comment. No. There is a problem with this declaration and it is not that easy at times to see what is going on, when there are people out there claiming different interpretations.

Exactly my point about the foolishness of confusing the heterodox with such declarations. All I was trying to say about interpreting it is that despite it's general stupidity, this declaration in no way actually teaches the efficacy of heterodox sacraments.

Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

We note that some of what is said is an out and out fib - "This decision is respected by all hierarchs and all synods of the Orthodox Church in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate."

So I think that people should be able to understand the confusion of Joe the Plumber when he reads this declaration which appears on the site of the Orthodox Research Institute and is signed at the bottom as a Publication of the Diocese of DenverGreek Orthodox Church of AmericaDecember 1997

Yes, the confusion is very understandable. The statement is silly and runs counter to the real situation with baptizing converts. To claim that all bishops agree with what has been stated is really a gross deception. Not even all the bishops of Constaninople agree, let alone other non-Greek bishops.

However, I would add that the idea that it is somehow oikonomical to confuse the heterodox (this post is exhibit A of the confusion) and to scandalize the faithful (exhibit B: the many posts on here where people received by chrismation only complain of nagging feelings of illegitimacy and unworthiness) is rather suspect. Pastorally, why is it a good call to deny Orthodox baptism to those who desire it where such a baptism could easily be performed?

But if that is true, then what does this mean:""For the record, the Eparchial Synod of Bishops of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, with the concurrence of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, has determined to recognize by extreme Oikonomia the heterodox Baptisms...""This decision is respected by all hierarchs and all synods of the Orthodox Church in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and it is consonant with similar determinations by the synods of the jurisdictions comprising the Standing Committee of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in America (SCOBA)."?

We already told you. It means that they are recognized as having valid form and that Chrismation is capable of completing the efficacy of them and that the jurisdiction is choosing to do so.

No longer being of the Byzantine communion, this question doesn't really apply to me.

As I understand your perception of your present spiritual situation it is altogether unique. You do not believe you have received baptism (I suppose that makes you an unbaptized pagan enquiring into Christianity.) Nor have you ever had the experience of receiving the Body and Blood of our Saviour since such is not found in the Eastern Orthodox Churches. As I say, it is a unique situation you inhabit and a unique way of perceiving your spiritual state. I pray that you worrisome pagan state will be resolved soon.

"So, if you do not accept this declaration are you in schism from the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Holy Orthodox Church?"

No, I would not be in schism as I am not under the EP. The Ecumenical Patriarchate can make its own determination that will only affect it (including its eparchies such as the Greek Archdiocese). As I am not under their jurisdiction nor are my Bishops it doesn't affect us. If your asking whether the EP receives someone via Chrismation whether everyone one else will accept them as being in the Orthodox Church than yes no one questions the efficacy of the Chrismation and its ability to perfect heterodox baptism. However, it is by economia and not everyone believes that is the best way of doing it. If the heterdox baptism is void of grace than I think it makes sense to baptize those that wish to enter the Church. Again I think Father Ambrose was correct when he stated that it will be difficult to grasp until one understands economia and akrivia.

Maybe we should talk about those Catholics who translate to Orthodoxy via a confession of faith....no chrismation.

I am told that this is done but rarely and under exceptional circumstances.

The Hapgood Service Book which is the English translation of the Services used in pre-revolutionary Russia makes no mention of it in the various services for reception.

Sometimes even a confession of faith is not sought!! For example the approx 30,000 Uniates received into Orthodoxy in the States about 100 years ago were not chrismated and neither were they required to present or to read a confession of faith. They simply went to Holy Communion and voila....members of the Orthodox Church!

It still happens that way and the eastern Catholics who do it that way go blissfully back and forth between Catholic and Orthodox Churches with their families. When they are in LA they go to their Orthodox parish and when they come here they attend their old baptismal Catholic parish, for example.

Some folks already have the best of both worlds and nobody complains...nobody gets excited...life just goes on as it should...I think.

"So, if you do not accept this declaration are you in schism from the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Holy Orthodox Church?"

I would say that every single bishop in the world accepts that declaration. Every single one. These baptisms may be recognised "by extreme Oikonomia."

I cannon think of any bishop or any priest who would not agree with that. I certainly agree with it. I think that every priest I know agrees with it.

So - we all agree with the statement. So, where's the catch?

The catch is if there is an unspoken corollary which mandates that "extreme Oikonomia" must be the rule and it is forbidden to baptize converts. But if no such prohibition is intended against baptizing converts then the statement is just fine as it stands, 100% Orthodox.

Maybe we should talk about those Catholics who translate to Orthodoxy via a confession of faith....no chrismation.

I am told that this is done but rarely and under exceptional circumstances.

The Hapgood Service Book which is the English translation of the Services used in pre-revolutionary Russia makes no mention of it in the various services for reception.

Sometimes even a confession of faith is not sought!! For example the approx 30,000 Uniates received into Orthodoxy in the States about 100 years ago were not chrismated and neither were they required to present or to read a confession of faith. They simply went to Holy Communion and voila....members of the Orthodox Church!

It still happens that way and the eastern Catholics who do it that way go blissfully back and forth between Catholic and Orthodox Churches with their families. When they are in LA they go to their Orthodox parish and when they come here they attend their old baptismal Catholic parish, for example.

Some folks already have the best of both worlds and nobody complains...nobody gets excited...life just goes on as it should...I think.

Mary

As a matter of interest, have you experienced this personally in your walk as a Ruthenian Catholic? How is it done? Is it done openly, or furtively? Have you, or the others you mention, referred this to the bishops or to their spiritual fathers?

"So, if you do not accept this declaration are you in schism from the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Holy Orthodox Church?"

I would say that every single bishop in the world accepts that declaration. Every single one. These baptisms may be recognised "by extreme Oikonomia."

I cannon think of any bishop or any priest who would not agree with that. I certainly agree with it. I think that every priest I know agrees with it.

So - we all agree with the statement. So, where's the catch?

The catch is if there is an unspoken corollary which mandates that "extreme Oikonomia" must be the rule and it is forbidden to baptize converts. But if no such prohibition is intended against baptizing converts then the statement is just fine as it stands, 100% Orthodox.

What the declaration implies is becoming somewhat clearer to Joe the Plumber now.

Maybe we should talk about those Catholics who translate to Orthodoxy via a confession of faith....no chrismation.

I am told that this is done but rarely and under exceptional circumstances.

The Hapgood Service Book which is the English translation of the Services used in pre-revolutionary Russia makes no mention of it in the various services for reception.

Sometimes even a confession of faith is not sought!! For example the approx 30,000 Uniates received into Orthodoxy in the States about 100 years ago were not chrismated and neither were they required to present or to read a confession of faith. They simply went to Holy Communion and voila....members of the Orthodox Church!

It still happens that way and the eastern Catholics who do it that way go blissfully back and forth between Catholic and Orthodox Churches with their families. When they are in LA they go to their Orthodox parish and when they come here they attend their old baptismal Catholic parish, for example.

Some folks already have the best of both worlds and nobody complains...nobody gets excited...life just goes on as it should...I think.

Mary

As a matter of interest, have you experienced this personally in your walk as a Ruthenian Catholic? How is it done? Is it done openly, or furtively? Have you, or the others you mention, referred this to the bishops or to their spiritual fathers?

Quite openly. There is no need to tell anyone. It is simply accepted as the way of things. It is a non-issue except with respect to the salvation of souls and that is not in the public domain.

The attitude is that it happens in other parts of the world so it happens here. There's an underlying attitude that is expressed by the thinking that once the muddle gets straightened out and there's resumed communion then they are already ahead of the game. And that attitude exists on both sides, although I know more Catholic pastors who get a little miffed by it, simply because they are not fond of Orthodoxy.

Not everyone is as convinced that the Catholic Church is the Church of Heresies, a mere RCRO. But there are strong disincentives to talking about it all too openly...if you know what I mean. Do other bishops know? I expect so. I suspect so.

I don't participate because the duplicity on both sides annoys me. I think we should simply resume communion and resolve our differences since most of them are highly resolvable.

No longer being of the Byzantine communion, this question doesn't really apply to me.

As I understand your perception of your present spiritual situation it is altogether unique. You do not believe you have received baptism (I suppose that makes you an unbaptized pagan enquiring into Christianity.) Nor have you ever had the experience of receiving the Body and Blood of our Saviour since such is not found in the Eastern Orthodox Churches. As I say, it is a unique situation you inhabit and a unique way of perceiving your spiritual state. I pray that you worrisome pagan state will be resolved soon.

Given that I view the Byzantine tradition as lacking loyal and authentic orthodox doctrinal continuity, I think it would be fair to apply the same reasoning for that background as we are in this thread for the Romans. No, I did not receive an efficacious Baptism or Chrismation or Communion or Confession (the few times in a year that I did that).

Because of my issues with the Agreed Statements, it is taking significantly longer than I had hoped.

I think at the core of this is the issue of the differing perspectives on validity and efficacy between the Christian West and East. The West, via the teachings of Augustine of Hippo, has long assumed that an ordinance performed with the valid form and intention of a Christian Sacrament logically is an efficacious Christian Sacrament. On the other hand, the Christian East has maintained the tradition that valid form and intention is not all that it takes to confect an efficacious Christian Sacrament, but also doctrinal orthodoxy. As a matter of fact, I just recently had to explain to two Byzantines the other day that just because their church recognizes heterodox baptisms as valid and doesn't perform them again doesn't mean that they recognize them as having been efficacious.

I think at the core of this is the issue of the differing perspectives on validity and efficacy between the Christian West and East. The West, via the teachings of Augustine of Hippo, has long assumed that an ordinance performed with the valid form and intention of a Christian Sacrament logically is an efficacious Christian Sacrament. On the other hand, the Christian East has maintained the tradition that valid form and intention is not all that it takes to confect an efficacious Christian Sacrament, but also doctrinal orthodoxy. As a matter of fact, I just recently had to explain to two Byzantines the other day that just because their church recognizes heterodox baptisms as valid and doesn't perform them again doesn't mean that they recognize them as having been efficacious.

Not even doctrinal orthodoxy is enough. As your username attests, God is Truth. No Sacrament is "efficacious", logically speaking, outside of the Theanthropic reality which is His Body, the Church. I quoted on another thread today, and I will quote again: "One of the soldiers, however, pierced his side with a spear, and immediately blood and water flowed out." It is that blood and water, that flows from the Body of Christ, which washes us and saves us, and no other.

Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

I think at the core of this is the issue of the differing perspectives on validity and efficacy between the Christian West and East. The West, via the teachings of Augustine of Hippo, has long assumed that an ordinance performed with the valid form and intention of a Christian Sacrament logically is an efficacious Christian Sacrament. On the other hand, the Christian East has maintained the tradition that valid form and intention is not all that it takes to confect an efficacious Christian Sacrament, but also doctrinal orthodoxy. As a matter of fact, I just recently had to explain to two Byzantines the other day that just because their church recognizes heterodox baptisms as valid and doesn't perform them again doesn't mean that they recognize them as having been efficacious.

Not even doctrinal orthodoxy is enough. As your username attests, God is Truth. No Sacrament is "efficacious", logically speaking, outside of the Theanthropic reality which is His Body, the Church. I quoted on another thread today, and I will quote again: "One of the soldiers, however, pierced his side with a spear, and immediately blood and water flowed out." It is that blood and water, that flows from the Body of Christ, which washes us and saves us, and no other.

I agree. Visible unity as the Body of Christ is also necessary. Doctrinal orthodoxy is none the less a requisite, however, and at that a requisite that the West does not recognize.

I think at the core of this is the issue of the differing perspectives on validity and efficacy between the Christian West and East. The West, via the teachings of Augustine of Hippo, has long assumed that an ordinance performed with the valid form and intention of a Christian Sacrament logically is an efficacious Christian Sacrament. On the other hand, the Christian East has maintained the tradition that valid form and intention is not all that it takes to confect an efficacious Christian Sacrament, but also doctrinal orthodoxy. As a matter of fact, I just recently had to explain to two Byzantines the other day that just because their church recognizes heterodox baptisms as valid and doesn't perform them again doesn't mean that they recognize them as having been efficacious.

Not even doctrinal orthodoxy is enough. As your username attests, God is Truth. No Sacrament is "efficacious", logically speaking, outside of the Theanthropic reality which is His Body, the Church. I quoted on another thread today, and I will quote again: "One of the soldiers, however, pierced his side with a spear, and immediately blood and water flowed out." It is that blood and water, that flows from the Body of Christ, which washes us and saves us, and no other.

I agree. Visible unity as the Body of Christ is also necessary. Doctrinal orthodoxy is none the less a requisite, however, and at that a requisite that the West does not recognize.

We are certainly in agreement. My point is that "doctrinal orthodoxy" flows, as does every good thing, from union with the Body of Christ. Insofar as Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, we cannot hope to have Sacraments, correct doctrine, God-pleasing worship, true sanctity, or anything else unto salvation outside of Christ, which is to say, outside his Body the Church.

I was under the impression that many OO hierarchs both historically and modernly, did not have a problem with the doctrine of Chalcedon (given some freedom of interpretation) so much as with what one might call the 'attitude' of Chalcedon. Certainly many OOs on here seem to think there is little that really separates us as regards doctrine. I of course am no expert in this matter, but though personally I am happy in my assent to the Chalcedonian formulation, it seems to me reunification between EOs and OOs is, while perhaps more problematic than EOs and Russian Old Ritualists, certainly possible and much less problematic than EOs and Rome.

An Ethiopian woman, may God grant her rest with the righteous, used to attend my Russian parish and commune regularly. When she departed this life, a carpenter in the parish built her a casket and we had a funeral service before she was flown home to Ethiopia for burial. This seems standard practice in ROCOR, though I doubt any ROCOR bishops would deny the truth of Chalcedon. It just seems like what we have is a much milder albeit longstanding form of schism than with Rome. The hierarchy seems to treat OOs somewhat like Uniates? though perhaps I'm misinterpreting things. Also, I don't think this particular woman had much of an opinion on Chalcedon either way.

« Last Edit: July 21, 2010, 05:15:12 PM by JLatimer »

Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

I think at the core of this is the issue of the differing perspectives on validity and efficacy between the Christian West and East. The West, via the teachings of Augustine of Hippo, has long assumed that an ordinance performed with the valid form and intention of a Christian Sacrament logically is an efficacious Christian Sacrament. On the other hand, the Christian East has maintained the tradition that valid form and intention is not all that it takes to confect an efficacious Christian Sacrament, but also doctrinal orthodoxy.

Just as Catholics have their own criteria for what makes a valid Sacrament, so do the Orthodox have their criteria. One of these criteria is the requirement for an Orthodox minister (which can be any member of the faithful in the case of Baptism.)

So to the three Catholic requirements:

form, matter, and intent

the Orthodox add a fourth:

form, matter, intent, and minister.

Lacking an Orthodox minister (lay or ordained) for Baptism, no Baptism occurs.

I was under the impression that many OO hierarchs both historically and modernly, did not have a problem with the doctrine of Chalcedon (given some freedom of interpretation) so much as with what one might call the 'attitude' of Chalcedon.

While there are many Orientals today who will say that the doctrine of Chalcedon was essentially orthodox and misunderstood by the core Cyrillian party, this was far from the case historically. Particularly in the first few centuries following Chalcedon, the Orientals were convinced that Chalcedon had in fact compromised with Theodoreanism/Nestorianism. I think the current attitude that you are referring to is an abandonment of the historic Oriental teaching.

Certainly many OOs on here seem to think there is little that really separates us as regards doctrine.

I have had this same discussion a number of times already. In this issue, people fail to distinguish between the doctrine expressed by a religious body today and the doctrine expressed by the same religious body at various points throughout history, and given that, the possibility that they might actually not be substantially the same. Because of this, many Orientals are mistakenly lead to believe that if the doctrine right now expressed by your church appears to be orthodox, then it means that the Council of Chalcedon was orthodox. In avoiding this mistake, I would say that the doctrine I commonly hear expressed by those of your church right now, to the significant exclusion of some individuals, is essentially orthodox, whereas the doctrine expressed at Chalcedon was heterodox. Given this, our concurrence on doctrines now is a significant step towards reunion, but given the heterodoxy of Chalcedon, your church lacks pure orthodox continuity, and as such must not be accepted as if always orthodox, and must not be accepted while still recognizing Chalcedon.

I of course am no expert in this matter, but though personally I am happy in my assent to the Chalcedonian formulation, it seems to me reunification between EOs and OOs is, while perhaps more problematic than EOs and Russian Old Ritualists, certainly possible and much less problematic than EOs and Rome.

I agree that the Oriental and Byzantine traditions are very close and that the reunion of the two would not require much change. However, I don't go so far as many Orientals as to recognize your tradition as always having been orthodox, and thus that you can be accepted with absolutely no change of your official doctrinal formulation.

An Ethiopian woman, may God grant her rest with the righteous, used to attend my Russian parish and commune regularly.

If Oriental Orthodox are not baptized, why are they allowed to regularly receive Holy Communion in an Eastern Orthodox church?

As IrishHermit pointed out, different ways of accepting (different types of) heterodox exist. By economy, OOs are sometimes received by perhaps confession only, perhaps. I'm not even saying I think this is a good practice, just admitting that it happens. Certainly the EOC does not generally believe that OOs who persist in heterodoxy have efficacious baptisms etc., but their baptisms having a valid form, can be perfected by economy without physically reimmersing them.

Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.